Criminal Psychology

Operant conditioning

• Learning from the consequences of actions- stating that behavior is likely to be repeated if reinforced and less likely if punished.

Positive reinforcement

Adding something pleasant to encourage behaviour.

Negative reinforcement

Removing something unpleasant to encourage behaviour

Positive punishment

Adding something unpleasant to discourage behavior.

Negative punishment

Removing something pleasant to discourage behavior.

Primary reinforcers

Satisfy basic survival needs

Secondary reinforcers

Have no direct survival value but are associated with primary reinforcers

Strengths of operant conditioning

• Explains how crime is reinforced- Peer groups reinforce criminal behaviour through social approval

• Explains how punishment reduces crime- Prison deters criminal behaviour

Weaknesses of operant conditioning

• Not all crimes are due to reinforcement or punishment- Some crimes can be motivated by revenge, emotions or ideology

• Reductionist approach- Ignores biological factors like genetics

Social learning theory (Bandura)

Crime is learned through observation and imitation of role models

ARRMI Process (Stages of learning)

Attention

Retention

Reproduction

Motivation

Identification

Attention (stages of learning)

• Must focus on the role model's behaviour.

Retention

• Must store the behaviour in memory.

Reproduction

• Must be physically capable of repeating the behaviour.

Intrinsic Motivation

• Doing the behaviour for personal satisfaction.

Vicarious Reinforcement:

• Copying behaviour after seeing someone else get rewarded.

Identification

Adopting behaviours, values, and beliefs of a role model or group

Biological explanation

• Crime may also be influenced by genetic, neurological, or physiological factors rather than learning alone.

Strengths of SLT

• Evidence- Bandura (1960)

  • Children were more likely to copy aggressive behaviour if the role model was rewarded or if they were the same gender

• Explains why not everyone becomes a criminal

  • Not everyone who witnesses a crime commits crime

  • They may not have motivation to imitate criminal behaviour

Weaknesses of SLT

• Short-term evidence

  • Bandura’s study only showed short term aggression

  • Cannot ethically test if SLT leads to long-term criminal behaviour

• Not all crimes are learnt from role models

  • Some crimes are motivated by money and reward instead of imitation

Twin studies

• Identical twins (monozygotic) are both more likely to become criminals than non-identical twins

Findings- Christiansen (1977)

• Males: 35% of identical twins were both criminals vs. 13% of non-identical twins.

• Females: 21% of identical twins were both criminals vs. 8% of non-identical twins.

• However : Identical twins share a similar upbringing, which could explain the higher rates.

Adoption studies- Hutchings and Mednick

• 21% of adopted children with a criminal biological father committed crimes.

• Only 10% of adopted children whose adoptive father was a criminal committed crimes.

• Genetics may play a role in criminality.

• However, it is reductionist—environmental influences also matter.

Eysenck’s personality theory (1964)

Personality types are inherited and linked to criminality

3 key personality types

• Extraversion (E) – Outgoing, thrill-seeking, risk-taking.

• Introversion – Reserved, quiet, shy

• Neuroticism (N) – Emotionally unstable, overreacts under stress.

• Psychoticism (P) – Lacks empathy, aggressive, antisocial.

High PEN score = higher likelihood of criminal behaviour

High E score

• Low nervous system arousal → Seeks excitement (thrill-seeking).

Low E score

High arousal → Avoids risky behaviour.

High N schore

Overreacts under stress, unstable

High P score

• Cold, lacks compassion, more likely to be antisocial.

What does it mean if criminals tend to have a high PEN score

• Do not fear punishment.

• Are sensation-seeking and impulsive.

• Lack of empathy, making antisocial behaviour exciting.

Socialisation

• Most people learn to associate crime with anxiety

• Criminals with high PEN scores do not experience this fear so punishment is less effective

Strengths of Eysenck’s personality theory

• Supporting evidence (Farrington et al-1982)

  • Evidence linking high P and N score to criminal behaviour

• Holistic approach

  • Combines biological (genes, nervous system), psychological (traits) and social (upbringing) factors

Weakness- Eysenck personality theory

• Fixed personality traits

  • Assumes personality is fixed and unchangeable, behaviour can change based on the situation

• Self-report questionnaires

  • People may not answer truthfully or may try to appear a certain way

• Ignores environmental factors

  • Sociologists argue that poverty and social conditions influence crime more than personality trait
    

Prison

• Offenders are placed in prison, denying freedom based on court-determined sentencing.

• Operant conditioning principles: Positive punishment, positive reinforcement (prison routine), negative reinforcement (as a deterrent).

Strengths of prison

• Removes criminals from society.

• Ensures public safety.

Weaknesses of prison

• Ineffectiveness due to exposure to criminal role models in prisons

• Raises ethical concerns, removal of civil liberties

Community sentencing

• Alternative to prison, involving unpaid work and community restrictions.

Strengths of community sentencing

• Offers second chances may reduce re-offending.

• More suitable punishments for certain cases.

Weaknesses of community sentencing

• Viewed as a lenient option by some.

• Low success rate; breaches, non-compliance, further convictions.

Restorative justice

• The offender communicates with victims, aiming for understanding and responsibility acceptance.

Strengths of restorative justice

• High satisfaction rate (around 85%).

• 14% reduction in recidivism compared to non-use.

Weaknesses of restorative justice

• Potential distress for both parties.

• Time-consuming and costly process.

Token Economy

• Behavior modification is based on operant conditioning.

• Reinforcement through tokens for prosocial behaviour in prison.

Why are tokens secondary reinforcers

• Once prisoners collect a certain amount they can exchange them for rewards

Purpose of rehabilitation

• Aims to help offenders rather than punish them.

• Reduces antisocial behaviour and increases prosocial behaviour.

• Can be used in prison or community sentences

Strengths of Token economy programmes

• Evidence- Hobbs and Holt (1976)

  • Found short term increase in prosocial behaviour

• Economical-

  • Cheaper than counsellors and criminal psychologists

Weaknesses of Token economy programs

• Does not reduce recidivism (reoffending)

  • Tokens do not exist in real life, so behaviour change does not last outside prison.

• Requires staff commitment

  • If staff fail to consistently reinforce behaviour, prisoners may return to antisocial behaviour.

Anger management programmes

• CBT for violent offenders

• Aims to help offenders control ander and resolve conflict in non-violent ways

Three stages of anger management programmes

• Cognitive Preparation – Offenders reflect on what triggers their anger.

• Skills Acquisition – Learn techniques like relaxation and assertiveness training.

• Application Practice – Role-playing anger-triggering situations.

Strengths of anger management

• Can reduce recidivism

  • Serin (1999): Found lower reoffending rates in those who completed anger management.

  • Ireland (2000): Prisoners reported feeling less anger after completing the programme

Weaknesses of anger management

• Not all violent crimes are caused by anger

  • Some crimes are motivated by other factors

• Offenders can misuse the program

  • Rice (1997): Psychopaths became more dangerous after anger management, as they used their skills to manipulate others.

  • Howells (2005): Found no reduction in reoffending and suggested that criminals learned to use anger strategically to commit crimes more effectively.

Aims of Bandura et al.

• To investigate if children imitate aggression from an observed adult role model.

• To examine if the gender of the role model and child’s sex affects aggression imitation.

Participants and groups- Bandura et al

• Participants

  • 72 children (36 boys, 36 girls), aged 37-69 months.

  • All from Stanford University Nursery.

  • Matched based on their aggression levels (rated by a teacher and experimenter).

  Groups

  • 8 experimental groups (6 children each):

    • 4 observed an aggressive model (male/female).

    • 4 observed a non-aggressive model (male/female).

  • Control group (24 children) – No role model.

Procedure 1- Bandura

1. Each child taken to a room with potato prints and toys.

2. A role model (adult) enters and plays in another corner with a set of toys and a Bobo doll.

Procedure 2- Bandura

• Aggressive Condition:

  • Model physically and verbally attacked the Bobo doll (e.g., "Kick him!" and "Pow!").

  • Used a mallet.

• Non-aggressive Condition:

  • Model played calmly with toys and ignored the Bobo doll.

Procedure 3- Bandura

1. Frustration Induction:

   • Child taken to a room with attractive toys but told they couldn't play with them.

Results- Bandura

1. Children who observed an aggressive model showed more aggression than the control group.

2. Physical & verbal aggression increased in the aggressive model group.

3. Children invented new ways to be aggressive (non-imitative aggression).

4. Boys were more likely to imitate physical aggression from a male model.

5. Girls were more likely to imitate verbal aggression from a female model

Conclusion of Bandura

• Children learn through observation.

• Aggression can be learned from role models, especially if the model is the same sex as the child.

Strengths- Bandura

1. Lab Experiment – Standardised, high control = High reliability.

2. Replicable – Can be repeated with consistent results.

3. Matched Pairs Design – Avoided extraneous variables (e.g., natural aggression differences).

4. Inter-Rater Reliability – Observers (teacher & experimenter) agreed on aggression ratings.

Weaknesses- Bandura

1. Lacks Ecological Validity

   • Artificial setting – Beating a Bobo doll isn’t realistic.

   • Children may not behave the same way in real life.

2. Demand Characteristics

   • Children may have guessed the aim and acted how they thought they should.

3. Ethical Issues

   • Children were exposed to aggression – Potential long-term effects.

   • Did not protect participants from harm.

 

Aim- Charlton et al.

• To investigate the effects of television on children’s behaviour.

• To determine whether TV would increase aggression in children.

(Procedure) Type of study- Charlton et al

• Natural Experiment (Researchers did not manipulate the IV – introduction of TV was already happening).

• DV = Children's behaviour before and after exposure to television.

(Procedure) How behaviour was measured- Charlton

• Children aged 3-8 observed in two schools.

• Behaviour recorded:

  • 4 months before TV introduction.

  • 5 years after TV introduction.

• Video cameras recorded playground behaviour for 2 weeks.

• Used Playground Behaviour Observation Schedule (PBOS) to code pro-social and anti-social behaviour.

• Researchers also recorded whether the behaviour came from:

  • Single boy/girl

  • Pairs of boys/girls

  • Groups of 3 or more

Findings- Charlton

• Only 9 significant differences out of 64 behaviours measured.

• Pro-social behaviour changes:

  • 5 decreases in pro-social behaviour (both boys & girls).

  • 2 increases in pro-social behaviour (boys playing alone).

• Anti-social behaviour changes:

  • 2 decreases in anti-social behaviour (both boys & girls).

• NO overall increase in aggression after TV introduction.

Conclusion- Charlton

• Television had little effect on children's behaviour.

• No evidence that TV increases aggression.

• Possible explanation:

  • Close-knit community (strong social bonds).

  • Constant adult supervision (may have prevented imitation of aggression).

Strengths- Charlton

1. Same primary schools used → Minimized differences that could affect results.

2. Natural experiment → Real-life setting, so behaviour was natural and valid.

Weaknesses- Charlton

1. Findings limited to this specific community →

   • Williams (1981) found TV increased aggression in Canadian children.

2. TV content on St Helena was different →

   • They did not have violent shows like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (so less aggression to imitate).-